On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, Tom Lane wrote:
> I just got a note from Chris Williams to the effect that when he built
> 6.4 on his HPUX setup, the install step failed. Seems that HP has
> a largely incompatible program called "install" living in /etc, and
> configure tried to use it. (I hadn't ever noticed this because I don't
> run with /etc in my path except when I'm root. HP does offer a
> compatible flavor of install in /opt/imake/bin...)
>
> This brings up something I've been thinking for a while, but hadn't
> gotten around to proposing. I have noticed that most other large
> packages that need "install" use an install script distributed
> with the package; they all say there's too much variation in
> vendor-supplied install programs to risk depending on those.
> I say it's time we do the same. We do already include an install script
> (src/install-sh), so it's not at all clear what the value is of trying
> to use a locally provided install program. We're not saving space, and
> we're wasting time during configure.
>
> I propose taking out configure's search for an install program and
> just letting it select install-sh always. Anyone who really wanted
> to use their local install could still override that decision by
> changing Makefile.global.
>
> Another alternative is to use the standard autoconf AC_PROG_INSTALL
> macro, which contains some grotty tests to weed out incompatible
> versions of install. But I don't really see the reason for taking any
> risk.
>
> Comments? Objections?
AC_PROG_INSTALL looks like a good way to do it...go for it...I do
object to having it 'hardcoded', as it makes the assumption that the
system administrator doesn't know what they are doing (ie. in setting
paths)
Marc G. Fournier
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org